Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Use and Abuse of Speech-Act Theory in Criticism: A Corrective Note

The Use and Abuse of Speech-Act Theory in Criticism: A Corrective Note Poetics Today : (Fall ). Copyright ©  by the Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. Poetics Today 22:3 The minor error that I made was to mischaracterize Jacques Derrida’s response to John Searle in ‘‘Limited Inc’’ (Derrida  []). As I put it (: ), Derrida attempted to cast Searle as a defender of some Austinian orthodoxy, and against this I emphasized the critical, revisionist nature of Searle’s response to Austin. Upon rereading Derrida, however, I must note in fairness that Derrida’s treatment is (ever so) slightly more nuanced than this. In section J of ‘‘Limited Inc,’’ Derrida quotes Searle as making the same point that I did, Derrida’s reaction to the point being the claim that Searle ‘‘would like to be Austin’s sole legitimate heir and his sole critic’’ (). This error is a minor one because it pertains to nothing more than the exegesis of Derrida. In my essay (–), I had already pointed out the tendency of these interpretive subtleties to distract from reflection on the theory of speech acts, which I simply assumed to be the primary aim and justification of the material discussed there. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Poetics Today: International Journal for Theory and Analysis of Literature and Communication Duke University Press

The Use and Abuse of Speech-Act Theory in Criticism: A Corrective Note

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/the-use-and-abuse-of-speech-act-theory-in-criticism-a-corrective-note-2N8ijW6lSY
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2001 by Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University
ISSN
0333-5372
eISSN
1527-5507
DOI
10.1215/03335372-22-3-669
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Poetics Today : (Fall ). Copyright ©  by the Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. Poetics Today 22:3 The minor error that I made was to mischaracterize Jacques Derrida’s response to John Searle in ‘‘Limited Inc’’ (Derrida  []). As I put it (: ), Derrida attempted to cast Searle as a defender of some Austinian orthodoxy, and against this I emphasized the critical, revisionist nature of Searle’s response to Austin. Upon rereading Derrida, however, I must note in fairness that Derrida’s treatment is (ever so) slightly more nuanced than this. In section J of ‘‘Limited Inc,’’ Derrida quotes Searle as making the same point that I did, Derrida’s reaction to the point being the claim that Searle ‘‘would like to be Austin’s sole legitimate heir and his sole critic’’ (). This error is a minor one because it pertains to nothing more than the exegesis of Derrida. In my essay (–), I had already pointed out the tendency of these interpretive subtleties to distract from reflection on the theory of speech acts, which I simply assumed to be the primary aim and justification of the material discussed there.

Journal

Poetics Today: International Journal for Theory and Analysis of Literature and CommunicationDuke University Press

Published: Sep 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.